DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 30, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/30/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,378,957 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buisine et al. (US 4,705,459 – herein after Buisine).
In reference to claim 5, Buisine discloses a plug (13, see fig. 1) configured to close a bore (vertical bore; in view of fig. 1) formed within a fluid end body (1, see fig. 1), the plug (13) comprising:
a body (as evident from fig. 1), comprising (see fig. A below):
a first section (“S1”) having a first diameter (“d1”), the first section situated within the bore;
a second section (“S2”) having a second diameter (“d2”), the second section configured to engage a seal (“s”) situated within the bore; and
a third section (“S3”) having a third diameter (“d3”), the third section situated within the bore;
in which the second section (“S2”) is situated between the first (“S1”) and third (“S3”) sections; and
in which the second diameter (“d2”) is greater than both the first (“d1”) and third (“d3”) diameters;
in which the fluid end body comprises an internal chamber (space in which component(s) 12/7 in fig. 1 is present); and
in which the third section (“S3”) is situated intermediate the internal chamber and the second section (“S2”).
PNG
media_image1.png
643
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 1 of Buisine to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 6, Buisine discloses the plug, further comprises a flange (see fig. A above: “f1” or “f2”) joined to the body.
In reference to claim 7, Buisine discloses the plug, in which (see fig. A above: “f1” or “f2”) the flange is joined to the first section (“S1”) of the body.
In reference to claim 8, Buisine discloses the plug, in which the plug is a discharge plug (the asserted plug in Buisine is considered to be “a discharge plug” since removing it allows access to outlet components such as delivery valve 7 or spring 12; note that the phrase “discharge plug” is an intended use or functional label).
In reference to claim 9, Buisine discloses the plug, in which the plug is a suction plug (the asserted plug in Buisine is considered to be “a suction plug” since removing it allows one to access to inlet components such as inlet valve 5 or spring 9; furthermore, note that the phrase “suction plug” is an intended use or functional label).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwoebel et al. (WO 2016/003686A1 – herein after Schwoebel).
In reference to claim 10, Schwoebel discloses a fluid end (“quick-connector coupling 10” seen in figs. 1-3 is considered to be a fluid end; i.e. a component for carrying fluid), comprising (see figs. 1-3):
a housing (see fig. B below) having a bore (34) formed therein;
a seal (O-ring 36) situated within a wall (wall between shoulder 38 and shoulder 31; see fig. 3) surrounding the bore;
a first plug (cap 12) situated at least partially within the bore, the first plug comprising:
a body (cap stub 40), comprising (see fig. B below):
a first section (“S1”) having a first maximum diameter (“d1”);
a second section (“S2”) having a second maximum diameter (“d2”);
a third section (“S3”) having a third maximum diameter (“d3”), the third section situated within the bore;
in which the second maximum diameter (“d2”) is greater than both the first (“d1”) and third (“d3”) maximum diameters;
in which the second section (“S2”) is situated intermediate the first (“S1”) and third (“S3”) sections;
in which the body engages the seal (36) at only the second section (“S2”);
in which the first section (“S1”) is installed further (in view of fig. B below: ↓ direction) within the bore than the second (“S2”) and third (“S3”) sections.
PNG
media_image2.png
974
1216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited figs. 2-3 of Schwoebel to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 11, Schwoebel discloses the fluid end, in which the first plug (12) further comprises: a flange (28) joined to the body, the flange having a flange maximum diameter (“d”, see fig. B above) which is greater than the second maximum diameter (“d2”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10, 11, 13 – 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buisine et al. (US 4,705,459 – herein after Buisine) in view of Nowell et al. (US 2017/0089473 – herein after Nowell).
In reference to claim 10, Buisine teaches a fluid end (see fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (1) having a bore (vertical bore; in view of fig. 1) formed therein;
a seal (see fig. A above: labeled “s”) situated within the bore;
a first plug (13) situated at least partially within the bore, the first plug comprising (see fig. A above):
a body (as evident from fig. 1 or fig. A above), comprising:
a first section (“S1”) having a first maximum diameter (“d1”);
a second section (“S2”) having a second maximum diameter (“d2”);
a third section (“S3”) having a third maximum diameter (“d3”), the third section situated within the bore;
in which the second maximum diameter (“d2”) is greater than both the first (“d1”) and third (“d3”) maximum diameters;
in which the second section (“S2”) is situated intermediate the first (“S1”) and third (“S3”) sections;
in which the body engages the seal (“s”) at only the second section (“S2”);
in which the first section (“S1”) is installed further (in view of fig. C below: ↑ direction) within the bore than the second (“S2”) and third (“S3”) sections.
Buisine teaches the fluid end, wherein the seal (“s”) is situated within a wall of the asserted second section (“S2”).
Buisine does not teach the fluid end, comprising the seal situated within a wall surrounding the bore (i.e. wall portion of the housing that surrounds the bore and the second section of the plug, for instance).
However, Nowell teaches a fluid end (230, see figs. 11-12), comprising: a seal (242) situated within (in groove 239, see fig. 12) a wall (of the fluid end’s body/housing) surrounding the bore (236).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a seal as taught by Nowell in the wall surrounding the bore and the second section in Buisine’s fluid end for the purpose of mounting and sealing the plug to the fluid end body in a manner that transfers the erosion from the high pressure fluid device body to the component sealed with the body, as recognized by Nowell (see ¶6 and ¶7).
In reference to claim 11, Buisine teaches the fluid end, in which the first plug further comprises: a flange (“f2”, see fig. A above) joined to the body, the flange having a flange maximum diameter (“d”, see fig. A above) which is greater than the second maximum diameter (“d2”).
In reference to claim 13, Buisine teaches the fluid end, in which the housing (1) has a second bore (bore that extends in ↔ direction, see fig. 1) formed therein, the fluid end further comprising: a second plug (10) situated within the second bore.
In reference to claim 14, Buisine teaches the fluid end, in which the first plug (13) is a discharge plug (the asserted first plug in Buisine is considered to be “a discharge plug” since removing it allows access to outlet components such as delivery valve 7 or spring 12; note that the phrase “discharge plug” is an intended use or functional label).
In reference to claim 15, Buisine teaches the fluid end, in which the second plug (10) is a suction plug (the asserted second plug is considered to be “suction plug” since removing it allows one to access to inlet components such as inlet valve 5 or spring 9; furthermore, note that the phrase “suction plug” is an intended use or functional label).
In reference to claim 16, Buisine teaches the fluid end, in which the second bore (see fig. 1) is configured to receive at least a portion of a reciprocating plunger (3).
In reference to claim 18, Buisine, as modified, teaches the fluid end, further comprising: a first annular clearance (as evident from fig. A above) surrounding the first section (“S1”) of the body; and a second annular clearance (in view of proposed modification discussed above for claim 10; this clearance is the space in which the seal is received) surrounding the second section (“S2”) of the body.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwoebel in view of Yohpe, Reinhard (US 3,185,103 – herein after Yohpe).
Regarding claim 12,
Schwoebel teaches the fluid end with the flange (28) within the bore (34).
Schwoebel does not teach the fluid end, in which the flange is not situated within the bore.
However, Yohpe teaches a plug (34+39+40; see disclosed figures), in which the flange section (34) of the plug (34+39+40) is not situated within the bore (15, see fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flange location in Schwoebel such that the flange is not situated within the bore as taught by Yohpe for the purpose of firmly securing the plug to the housing of the fluid end using the fasteners, as recognized by Yohpe (see col. 4, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 17,
Schwoebel teaches the fluid end, in which the first plug (12) is secured to the housing.
Schwoebel does not teach the fluid end, in which the first plug is secured to the housing by a plurality of fasteners.
However, Yohpe teaches the fluid end (see disclosed figures), in which a plug (34+39+40) is secured to the housing (11) by a plurality of fasteners (35+36).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flange for securing the first plug to the housing in the fluid end of Schwoebel by a plurality of fasteners as taught by Yohpe for the purpose of firmly securing the plug to the housing of the fluid end, as recognized by Yohpe (see col. 4, lines 30-32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 4 are allowed, see reasons for allowance as discussed in the Response to Arguments section below.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record fail to teach the plug that further comprises “a protrusion extending from the third section, the protrusion having a fourth diameter; …in which both the first and third diameters are greater than the fourth diameter”, as in claim 1, and “a protrusion extending from the first section, the protrusion having a fourth maximum diameter; …in which the fourth maximum diameter is smaller than the first, second, and third maximum diameters”, as in claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025, with respect to rejection of independent claim 1, are found to be persuasive, specifically as detailed on page 3 of Applicant’s Remarks section where advantages of the claimed design are discussed. Thus, the rejections have been withdrawn and corresponding claims 1 – 4 are allowed for reasons stated above.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025, with respect to independent claims 5 and 10, have been fully considered but they are moot. The amendment to the independent claims 5 and 10 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, new grounds of rejections have been presented for these claims over newly found reference of Buisine and Schwoebel. .
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746